The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a tender based on reasons unrelated to the business of the petitioner and without a fair opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside the Letter bearing Ref. No. AAI/RC/CML/M&C/F&B/544-45 dated 27.10.2021 issued by Respondent No. 1 and the decision of the competent authority terminating the tender for "Concession to Design, Fit-Out, Finance, Develop, Market, Operate, Maintain And Manage the Food & Beverage Outlets at NITB, Birsa Munda Airport Ranchi" awarded to the Petitioner vide Letter of Intent to Award (LOIA) dated 29.07.2021. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 1 to execute the Concession Agreement in terms of the Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFP') with the Petitioner and hand over the possession of the space allotted and earmarked for food and beverage outlet in terms of the Request for Proposal to the Petitioner in furtherance of Letter bearing Ref No. AAI/RC/CML/M&C/F&B/362-71 dated 29.07.2021 and for a direction to restrain the Respondent No. 1 from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner by invoking/ en-cashing the Bank Guarantee bearing No. 76931GP002053121 dated 10.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.1,52,44,440/- (Rs. One Crore Fifty-Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Only) issued by Bank of Baroda, Mahipalpur Branch, New Delhi submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the LOIA dated 29.07.2021.

2. The facts leading to the instant Writ Petition are that the Airports Authority of India/Respondent No. 1, floated a Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFP') for a tender to Design, Fit Out, Finance, Develop, Market, Operate, Maintain and Manage the Food and Beverage Outlets at NITB, Birsa Munda Airport Ranchi on 13.01.2021. The Petitioner submitted his bid application on the day of extended deadline, i.e., on 15.02.2021.

3. The Petitioner was declared to be technically compliant and emerged as the highest bidder, subsequently being awarded the tender vide Letter of Intent to Award (hereinafter referred to as 'the LOIA') dated 29.07.2021. The competent authority of Respondent No. 1 awarded a Non-Exclusive Concession subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

4. The Respondents in a communication letter dated 29.04.2021 informed the Petitioner company of certain shortfalls in submitting bid documents online, and the Petitioner company complied with the aforesaid direction, rectifying the said shortfalls on 04.05.2021. The same was communicated in a letter to Respondent No. 1 via email.

5. That as per terms of the RFP, the Petitioner company was required to furnish a Bank Guarantee and settle advance license fee and both the requirements were duly complied with. License agreement on a stamp paper was sent to the Respondent No. 1 for execution on a letter dated 05.08.2021. Subsequently, the Petitioner company in compliance with terms laid down in the LOIA, furnished a bank guarantee (clause 4.1 of the LOIA) to the tune of INR 1,52,44,440/- on 11.08.2021, and in addition thereto, a sum of INR 19,05,555/- was transferred to Respondent No. 1 in lieu of an advance license fee payment.

6. On 23.08.2021, the Petitioner in a letter to Respondent No. 1 requested for possession of floor area allotted as per the contract. Meanwhile, the Vigilance Directorate conducted a surprise inspection at the Ranchi Airport and directed the airport authorities to place the contract on hold pending the final outcome of investigation.

7. On 24.09.2021, the Competent Authorities of Respondent No.1 decided to terminate the tender awarded to the Petitioner.

8. Subsequently, the Directorate informed Respondent No. 1 of irregularities in as much that the Petitioner had not submitted certain documents as was required in terms of the RFP. The Directorate arrived at a conclusion that the award of contract in favour of the Petitioner company was wrongful on accou